A Google lawyer testified on Tuesday that the software maker, pursuant to its contractual obligations, agreed to take over defense of some of the claims in Apple’s current patent lawsuit as well as to indemnify Samsung should it lose on those claims.
Apple played deposition testimony from Google lawyer James Maccoun, who verified emails in which Google agreed to provide partial or full indemnity with regard to four patents as well as to take over defense of those claims.
If this case was really about “justice”, as Apple claims it is, they should just get it over with and sue Google directly, instead of playing these proxy games. In any case, it’s good to know Google is taking responsibility for its OEMs here – long overdue.
Obviously Samsung doesn’t need the money, and their treatment of Windows Phone along with their waffling on Tizen makes it pretty clearly they have no intention of leaving Android, so I assume this move by Google has little to do with Samsung and is more about calming the fears of smaller OEMs who are listening to Microsofts candied words.
As for Apple, they haven’t sued any other manufacturers lately have they? It may be because Samsung is the only one the matters, but sometimes I feel like they realized their patent campaign was a mistake, but have too much pride to actually say that and back down from the battle with Samsung. Since both have virtually unlimited cash, this will unfortunately spiral on forever.
It came out on court that Sammy had been lieing about Googles involvement.
Also remember Apple has signed a couple of secret deals with other OEMs like HTC.
So I guess you miss the part where Samsung lied about the indemnity clause of the MADA that they signed. Google and Samsung signed a “Mobile Application Distribution Agreement” that required Samsung to include Google apps on its Galaxy devices. Because of that, Google agreed to help Samsung with legal issues related to the use of the technology.
Proof:
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25615743/apple-v-samsung-tri…
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-agreed-to-pony-up-for-samsungs-defe…
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1322052&_mc=RSS_EET_EDT
How does any of this contradict what is being said here?
Never said it contradicts, it excludes. The reason why this was brought to light was a result of Samsung’s attempted deception during the trial. Per the EE times article:
“The discovery came right before the start of Apple’s rebuttal case when Judge Koh allowed Apple’s lead attorney Harold McElhinny to read for the jury a Samsung document stating the company had no such agreement with anyone and then play a somewhat tortured deposition of Google’s chief counsel James Maccoun revealing the opposite.”
That’s the reason it made news.
I’m still missing the part where Samsung lied about it. It sounds like they said “you ought to sue Google when in cases where you allege Google-written software infringes your patents.” Then Apple said, “well Samsung is using the software so we can sue them regardless of who wrote it.”
Legally, Apple is right of course, but Thom’s post is about what Apple ought to do, not what they are allowed to do. Indeed, the ability to sue users of a patent-infringing product instead of the creator is one of the factors that contributes to patent trolling.
Google presumably offers indemnity because they know OEMs are going to be worrying about lawsuits, and because they don’t want bad precedents set by companies that are less motivated to defend the patents then Google itself. But logically, if Google software is allegedly infrining, Apple should target Google directly, not by proxy through manufacturers. Sadly, there is no logic in IP law.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-agreed-to-pony-up-for-samsungs-defe…
Disclaimer: I am simplifying what experts in patent law have to said it is a bit more complicated than I relay here.
I am not a lawyer, and neither is Thom, but when I have consulted patent attorneys on a couple of occasions and they have been consistent in telling me that if you want to sue, then you sue the people who sell the thing that violates the patent*.
Its not necessarily illegal to make something that violates a patent, or to even sell that to someone like an OEM. It is up to the person who puts it into the market to make sure they have rights to all the patents, copyrights, trademarks, et al they need.
Yes, it would be lovely if Apple and Google just settled their differences directly, but that may not be possible; and it is wrong to make the assumption that it is.
Edited 2014-04-24 14:24 UTC
Google does not sell Android. It gives away Android free of charge. And 10% or even 20% of nothing is nothing. As a result the business case fails.
Greetings,
pica
“If this case was really about “justice”, as Apple claims it is, they should just get it over with and sue Google directly, instead of playing these proxy games”
First: who say the case is about “justice” (as you mean it)? It is about law.
And then, for your information, suing Google is very difficult because Google do not sell Android for money and thus it would be very difficult to get anything from Google.
Funny, I always thought it was about greed